“Take Me to Church”
From 1955 to 1985, you congenial editor can hold his own in a trivia battle. He does fairly well the five years before and after this range, also. But Madonna and Prince came along, followed by rap, and pop music just wasn\'t as much fun anymore. So, most songs from 1990 are new (with the exception of \"The Bar Song,\" written about here in 2024); probably they need to need to be ten years old before being played one of Orlando\'s \"Oldies\' stations.
Such is the case with the song by Hozier called \"Take Me to Church,\" which was played at the end of last year, right after airing nothing but Christmas music from Thanksgiving to Christmas. The song blasphemes and vilifies God and the church, while glorifying sex. It was recorded by an Irish singer-songwriter, named Hozier, in September of 2013, but achieved widespread popularity in 2014. The song was written and recorded (originally) in the attic of his parents\' home. After it was re-recorded, it achieved Top Ten status in many countries, climbing to #1 in many of them, but only reaching #2 here. It was also nominated for Song of the Year. Your editor\'s view was that the melody is rather bland and unremarkable; it would have been ignored—except for the words.
All the song\'s lyrics will not be repeated; nor is it recommended that anyone read or listen to them (since they allegedly relate a romantic relationship between homosexuals. However, the opening provides no clue to that interpretation. He calls his lover she and praises her unorthodoxy (like giggling at a funeral). She does not care if people disapprove of her or not (obviously, a non-conformist and freethinker). The first four lines end with: \"I should\'ve worshipped her sooner.\"
Worship a human being? Well, King Nebuchadnezzar worshiped himself—and commanded everyone else to do the same (Dan. 3). It has always been the case that, when people cease worshiping God, they will worship just about anything else.
\"Because although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools\" (Rom. 1:21-22).
Furthermore, they \"worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen\" (1:25). This is precisely what happens in the song when the singer characterizes \"his\" church (as opposed to the Roman Catholic Church (presumably). He boasts:
My church offers no absolutes.
She tells me, \"Worship in the bedroom.\"
The only heaven I\'ll be sent to
Is when I\'m alone with you.
No Absolutes
If this is a boast, it rings hollow. Just because his church teaches no absolutes does not mean they don\'t exist. If a person attacks truth, he has not destroyed it. It does not need his permission to exist. Truth and absolutes do exist; in fact, absolute truth exists. Besides, would Hozier claim it is absolutely true there are no absolutes? Hmm.
It is obvious that the only God that exists for the singer is sex, which is the reason worship occurs in the bedroom. This \"theology\" is flawed in that God created a man and a woman in the beginning. Man frequently seems to think that He invented the sexual relationship when, in fact, God is the One Who designed it—and created the rules that govern it.
He further blasphemes by advocating: \"If the heavens ever did speak, She's the last true mouthpiece.\" This affirmation summons forth two truths to contradict it. First, the heavens have spoken a number of times. How about, \"Let there be light\" (Gen. 1:3)? How about when God spoke to Adam, Eve, and the serpent after they sinned (Gen. 3:9-19). How about when God spoke to Cain: \"Where is Abel your brother?\" and \"What have you done?\" (Gen. 4:9-10).
Or does Hozier think that God should be quiet about those stuffy old absolutes, like, \"You shall not murder\" (Ex. 20:13)? God spoke to Abraham about going to a land He would show him (and later give to his descendants). He also required him to sacrifice his son Isaac, but later stopped him from doing so. God spoke to Jacob from the heavens. All of these are recorded, and we have not even gotten to the Ten Commandments, which God spoke to Israel from heaven (Ex. 20). God also spoke in the New Testament era as He endorsed Jesus as His Son (Matt. 3:17; 17-5; John 17:
Second, this woman (whoever she is; Margaret Sanger would be a good choice) is no spokesperson for God. She speaks a humanistic message—not a spiritual one. It parallels no communication ever given by a true prophet of God anywhere in the Scriptures. However, plenty of false prophets spoke like her—especially those in Jezebel\'s day. Unrestrained sexuality was one of the main draws of idolatry (Rom. 1:21-28).
Assaults on Catholicism
Hozier has not use for the Roman Catholic Church and/or Christianity. He seems to feel that the church issues \"a fresh poison\" every week. Perhaps this terminology is aimed at those pesky absolute truths he detests. However, morality does involve absolutes. Adultery is absolutely wrong; so are homosexuality and fornication (Heb. 13:4). The \"church\" did not say these things; they were long ago forbidden in the Law of Moses (Ex. 20:14; Lev. 20:13, et al). The church teaches the same truths, but they did not originate with the church. Even before the Law of Moses, Jacob knew that adultery was a sin against God (Gen. 39:9). God also condemned homosexuality and destroyed Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim because of their devotion to it (Gen. 19).
Besides, does Hozier really not want any absolutes? Would it be okay for someone to steal from him or murder his loved ones? Would he just shrug his shoulders if he were convicted of a major crime by false witnesses at a trial and say, \"Yes, injustice was done here today, but at least we have no absolutes\"?
Have times changed? When popular fellow Irish-person, Sinead O\'Connor, ripped up the picture of Pope John Paul II on Saturday Night Live (October 3, 1992), her career, for all intents and purposes was over. But now Hozier has launched his career by being critical of Catholicism.
“Born Sick”
One line from the song is: \"We were ‘born sick,’ you heard them say it.\" If this is a reference to being \"born in sin,\" as Catholics and many Protestants teach it, we agree that the theology is wrong. People are not born sick—or depraved. They are taught to become that way, perhaps by listening to songs like this. If this is a reference to being born homosexual, that does not happen, either. Babies are innocent; they have committed no sins for which to be baptized.
Hozier proudly says he was born sick (an error on his part)—but that he loves it. And he adds Amens at the end of the verse, which is actually blasphemous. Jesus taught: \"But I say to you that for every idle word men may speak, they will give account of it in the day of judgement. For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned\" (Matt. 12:36-37).
The Chorus
The most oft-repeated lines in the song are listed below:
Take me to church.
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies.
I'll tell you my sins so you can sharpen your knife.
Offer me that deathless death.
Good God, let me give you my life.
The listener (if he has made it this far) notices a common fallacy made in society, which is going \"to church.\" No one in the Bible ever went \"to church.\" People comprise the church and assemble for worship. The church in the chorus is probably not the one of the singer\'s own creation. He seems to refer to one he does not like since he speaks of \"the shrine of your lies.\" There may be churches begun by men that teach, lies, but these do not include the church begun by Jesus whose adherents uphold the truth. Jesus came to bear witness of the truth, and all can know it (John 18:37; 8:32).
It\'s a guess that worshiping like a dog refers to being totally devoted and submissive without questioning anything. \"I\'ll tell you my sins\" may refer to a confessional, but then the tone abruptly changes. Priests are supposed to prescribe penance to parishioners—not sharpen a knife to harm someone. But why has the singer suddenly capitulated to going to such a place? The deathless death should refer to hell, which is everlasting. It may be there is a comparison made between lines 1-4 of the chorus and the fifth line.
With choice number one, going to a Catholic service, he joins with others, fawning over the system and believing its lies (false teachings). He confesses his sins—but expects to be attacked for practicing them—whether fornication, adultery, or homosexuality (this church is a killjoy). The only promise he receives from them is eternity in hell. The fifth line cannot be part of that system; it would make no sense; therefore, it must be in opposition to it.
The good God referred in this last line must be the one he sang of earlier—the sexual relationship in the bedroom. It is to this God that he gives his life rather than to the God of the Bible. Not included in the song is any reference to repentance, hope, or heaven. Everything about Christianity is portrayed as negative, while everything about sex is positive—which we know is not true. In popular songs, one only hears of romance and ecstasy. What popular song mentions HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea, and other STDs? Then there is the possibility of pregnancy, which is life altering for the mother of life-ending for the child. Yes, even Irish lasses take a brief trip to England and come back empty. But, hey, let\'s pretend that this bedroom theology is sound.
The world is not changing for the better. For decades, there have been nude beaches in various locales around the world—not to mention nudist camps—even in conservative states. Now there are nude cruises to exotic places. (Do participants need to wear clothes to get off the boat?) Don\'t these people realize that when Adam and Eve realized they were naked, they put on coverings? Does this topic actually need to be addressed?
\"Take me to Church,\" as stated previously was a hit around the world in 2014. According to Russell Contreras\' article on Axios (\"The Great Unchurching of America\"), the number of Americans religiously unaffiliated has jumped 33% since 2013. No, it is not implied that the song was responsible for that; they are both indicators of what is generally occurring. Immorality and disrespect for true religion are increasing. The same article reports that 57% of Americans \"seldom or never attend religious services.\" This number has increased 40% since 2000.
The more people reject the Scriptures, the more assaults there will be against Christianity. The mindset of many is, \"Whatever gets in the way of having fun needs to be cast aside.\" Remember COYOTE (Cast Off Your Old, Tired Ethics)? This is the time to arm ourselves with arguments and logic while some are still listening.